Safety at the Ballpark

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Mark- unfortunately, common sense is not so common anymore.


-

True. But covering the world with protective nets can't be the remedy to protect people from themselves.

[frankbmd]

A couple of years ago I was at Dodger Stadium seated on the field level, but under the mezzanine overhang, which is quite low at Dodger Stadium and outside the margin of the third base line netting. A line drive foul ball passed two seats to my right and hit a lady square in the face seated three rows behind me, not far from the concourse and the Dodger Dog stand. Under the mezzanine during a night game isn't very bright. I never saw the ball coming, but heard it and I doubt anyone in the immediate area did. She ended up with a handful of teeth and very bloody face. Drinking was not a factor and I was watching the game with my son. Suffice it to say, I would have predicted that the injured lady was in one of the safest seats in the house. You never know, and it could have easily been me or my son.

Am I in favor of the entire playing surface being enclosed in a plexiglass dome? No, but there is a risk involved to attending a live event wherever you are seated and whether or not you are paying attention to the game. Your odds are pretty good of surviving a MLB game, but it is not 100%

The other circumstance that would scare the crap out of mean, would be a hockey puck shot rapidly and deflected by goalie over the glass at 90mph. Those suckers (or should I say puckers) can go quite far into the crowd of darkened spectators and the puck is black. Dodging that bullet is next to impossible. I believe this situation has largely been alleviated with netting above the glass behind the net in most if not all NHL arenas.

[DaveW]

Years ago, my oldest son, who was about 11 years old at the time, brought his glove to a game and caught a high pop foul just inches above his grandfather’s head. I think he saved his life.
On a side note, I think drinking too much beer (and then driving home) as well as eating that lousy ballpark food has probably killed more people than foul balls ever will. Maybe they should put netting between the people and the concession stands.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I never saw the ball coming, but heard it and I doubt anyone in the immediate area did. She ended up with a handful of teeth and very bloody face. Drinking was not a factor and I was watching the game with my son. Suffice it to say, I would have predicted that the injured lady was in one of the safest seats in the house. You never know, and it could have easily been me or my son.

Am I in favor of the entire playing surface being enclosed in a plexiglass dome? No, but there is a risk involved to attending a live event wherever you are seated and whether or not you are paying attention to the game. Your odds are pretty good of surviving a MLB game, but it is not 100%

The other circumstance that would scare the crap out of mean, would be a hockey puck shot rapidly and deflected by goalie over the glass at 90mph. Those suckers (or should I say puckers) can go quite far into the crowd of darkened spectators and the puck is black. Dodging that bullet is next to impossible. I believe this situation has largely been alleviated with netting above the glass behind the net in most if not all NHL arenas.

Well, I think we mostly agree. Of course, reasonable netting needs to be there. But the goal cannot be to protect every single person from any type of injury.

I do not think it logically follows that: Someone suffered an unfortunate accident, therefore it should have somehow been prevented.

I think it's tragic someone died at a ballgame last year. But I will bet that if you looked at all the people who attend MLB games each year, many more die in traffic going to, or from, the game. In other words, people are safer at the game, generally.

Before we start putting nets everywhere, or redesigning every bathtub in America, or lowering all speed limits to 20 miles an hour, I think we should accept the fact that despite reasonable safety measures, accidents will continue to happen, and we all need to deal with that risk wherever we are.

[clydepepper]

I guess I can sew up this conversation with a quote:


"If you're not Neo, rely on Lazy-Boy"

[irv]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

A couple of years ago I was at Dodger Stadium seated on the field level, but under the mezzanine overhang, which is quite low at Dodger Stadium and outside the margin of the third base line netting. A line drive foul ball passed two seats to my right and hit a lady square in the face seated three rows behind me, not far from the concourse and the Dodger Dog stand. Under the mezzanine during a night game isn't very bright. I never saw the ball coming, but heard it and I doubt anyone in the immediate area did. She ended up with a handful of teeth and very bloody face. Drinking was not a factor and I was watching the game with my son. Suffice it to say, I would have predicted that the injured lady was in one of the safest seats in the house. You never know, and it could have easily been me or my son.

Am I in favor of the entire playing surface being enclosed in a plexiglass dome? No, but there is a risk involved to attending a live event wherever you are seated and whether or not you are paying attention to the game. Your odds are pretty good of surviving a MLB game, but it is not 100%

The other circumstance that would scare the crap out of mean, would be a hockey puck shot rapidly and deflected by goalie over the glass at 90mph. Those suckers (or should I say puckers) can go quite far into the crowd of darkened spectators and the puck is black. Dodging that bullet is next to impossible. I believe this situation has largely been alleviated with netting above the glass behind the net in most if not all NHL arenas.

Even hockey arenas at the minor league level, at least up here, have netting around the ends boards/corners as well as having the glass higher in those same spots as well. Some of the newer arenas have netting the whole way around, even where people don't sit. Times have changed.
I have attended many hockey games over the years and still, to this day, even with the netting, the safest places at an arena are in the middle sections.
However, years ago while watching the Oshawa Generals and Eric Lindros, this young woman showed up with a very young baby in her arms.
She was seated to the right of center but above the glass about half way up in the stands.
Enough angry people were grumbling/saying things out loud that the young woman had to have heard them. Many, including myself were upset at her for bringing such a young baby to a hockey game, let alone sitting where she was.
Needless to say, sometime during the hockey game, an errant puck went into the stands, but thankfully it hit her and not the baby!! Many, I think mainly out of relieve it was her and not the baby, gave it to her pretty good!
She was cut on the forehead pretty good and likely required stitches? If this puck had of hit the baby, whose head was likely only about 10" away from its mother's head, I would be telling a different story right now.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Well, I think we mostly agree. Of course, reasonable netting needs to be there. But the goal cannot be to protect every single person from any type of injury.

I do not think it logically follows that: Someone suffered an unfortunate accident, therefore it should have somehow been prevented.

I think it's tragic someone died at a ballgame last year. But I will bet that if you looked at all the people who attend MLB games each year, many more die in traffic going to, or from, the game. In other words, people are safer at the game, generally.

Before we start putting nets everywhere, or redesigning every bathtub in America, or lowering all speed limits to 20 miles an hour, I think we should accept the fact that despite reasonable safety measures, accidents will continue to happen, and we all need to deal with that risk wherever we are.

Comparing those things to a ballgame is not an apple to apple comparison, imo. Those situations, we are in control of for the most part, at a ball diamond, it is a different thing.
I see nothing wrong, at all, with putting netting along both sides of 1st and 3rd.
Times have changed, for the most part, better, imo, so MLB also needs to change as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktwgm1U2ero

[egri]

I'm with Chuck and Mark on this one; MLB attendance was 67.4 million last year. One person out of 67 million dying in a freak accident doesn't mean the parks are unsafe and in need of a drastic change.

[steve B]

It is sad when tragic things happen.

But... the need for netting to me seems to be a symptom of a broader problem. Somehow it's gone from "The ball might get hit here I should pay attention" or "I got hit by a foul ball because I was staring at my phone"
To
"I got hit by a foul ball, it's anyones fault but mine"

I just see way too much of that everywhere.

I will also temper that with the comment that some extension was a good idea. The 70's net/screen at Fenway was small enough that a foul hit just right could curve around the side and actually hit someone who was behind the screen. I actually saw that in person, and it was another person Rice carried to the trainer, just not one that got TV attention.


That's one weird hockey rink. No stands at all?